Comment from an evangelical presbyterian perspective and an orthodox confessionally reformed outlook.

Sunday, 20 April 2014

Anathema

Two sets of reading came together today. Firstly I was skimming the reports to this
year’s General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the mixed mainline
denomination that is in the midst of theological and moral confusion. A new terminology was being introduced, that
of “constrained diversity”, meaning that within the new “mixed economy”
of theological confusion the office-bearers and members will be forced to get
along with their differences:

“The 2013 General
Assembly expressed its wish to move to a version of the ‘mixed economy’ model
which, while maintaining the traditional position on marriage and sexuality,
was willing to accommodate a constrained diversity on the appointment of
gay ministers in a civil partnership.” (2.7.1)

Basically this means, “We will say one thing on sexual ethics
and marriage but you are free to do otherwise if you wish to do so, but we will
all agree to get along together, willingly or otherwise.”

It is interesting that under the proposed legislation going
down to presbyteries congregations will be able to opt for practicing
homosexuals, and individual presbyters, while not being forced to participate
in such ordinations, will have no right to bring discipline charges against
such individuals. Indeed, if a presbytery
cannot find enough members to form a quorum to conduct such ordinations,
neighbouring presbyteries can provide the necessary numbers.

So what will professed evangelicals do in such cases? Will they register their dissent? Will they protest? Or will they quietly acquiesce because they
will have no legal basis for such dissent and protest, and simply give de facto
recognition to such individuals. Will
they accept “constrained diversity”?

What would the Apostle Paul do in such a situation? It is tragic that when writing to the
Galatians he was so ill informed that he did not recognise the legitimacy of “constrained
diversity” and chose rather a confrontational model when dealing with the
Judaisers…

This brings me to my other reading, John Brown’s timeless
commentary on Galatians. Commenting on
Galatians 1:8,9 (“But even if we or an
angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached
to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If
anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him
be accursed”), this is what Brown says:

“But what
are we to understand by those words of the apostle in reference to the preacher
of another gospel, "Let him be accursed."

Some
consider them as a denunciation of vengeance on the corrupters of the Gospel of
Christ. I have no doubt that corrupters of the gospel of Christ, and especially
such corrupters as the apostle speaks of, are in extreme danger of aggravated condemnation—
of deepest perdition ; and this seems implied in the words ; but I apprehend
that the apostle's object is to point out the manner in which the Galatian
Christians ought to consider and treat such persons They ought not to receive
them. They ought not to listen to their doctrines, nor to follow their advice.They
ought to consider them as a devoted thing. They should treat them in the way in
which the Israelites were to treat the accursed or devoted thing.

I apprehend
it is nearly equivalent to the injunction of the apostle John, — " If
there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your
house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker
of his evil deeds." " I have never conceived," says a very acute
expositor of Scripture, " the words, “let him be accursed,” as denoting a prayer
that the curse of God should ultimately fall upon him (though we must be sure
that it shall, if he obtain not repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth),
but as a direction that he should be regarded as an accursed thing — as one
(however specious and esteemed) upon whom the wrath of God lies. He that will
not heartily join with the apostle in the solemn words, must be animated by
some spirit very different from that of the truth."

How those
Christians, who receive as ministers men whom they are ready enough to say preach another gospel, satisfy their own consciences, I cannot tell. To
acknowledge such men as ministers, and receive Christian ordinances at their
hand, is certainly not to treat them as a devoted thing. We should be very
cautious how we charge men with preaching another gospel ; but whenever we are
conscientiously persuaded that they do so, the line of conduct to be followed
by us is very plain.

We must
not acknowledge them as teachers; we must not listen to their instructions. They
must be to us "anathema." I wonder what amount of worldly good could
have induced the Apostle Paul to have acknowledged such men as ministers, and to
have treated them as brethren. Never was there a man more disposed to bear with
weak brethren; but never was there a man more determined to oppose, and to
expose, false brethren; and I believe it will be always found that, when the
love of the truth renders men kind and forbearing to others who really love the
truth, it renders them just in the same degree intolerant (so far as
church-fellowship is concerned) in reference to those who are the enemies of
the truth.”

Somehow I do not think Paul would have accepted “constrained
diversity” on either fundamental matters of doctrine or morality.

About Me

With degrees in both philosophy and theology, I have lived and worked in the UK, West Africa (working in theological education) and the USA. As a Teaching Elder I served for 19 years in the Church of Scotland and 4 years in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (USA). I am a minister of the Free Church of Scotland, and a member in St Andrews Free Church, Fife.

I am married to my wonderful wife Aileen, who has supported and moulded me over 40 years of marriage - an ongoing project that may yet pay dividends, although it requires great patience on her part.